Allowed

M.Raghavan v. The Commissioner

Madras HC4 Feb 2019WP/2818/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition under Article 226. The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus directing the fourth respondent temple authority to dispose of his representation regarding property measurement and rent fixation within four weeks without expressing views on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directing the fourth respondent to consider the petitioner's representation of 25.10.2018 and pass orders on merits within four weeks.

M.Raghavan Vs The Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 04.02.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

W.P.No.2818 of 2019

¶6

and

¶7

W.M.P.No.3078 of 2019

¶8

M.Raghavan ...Petitioner

¶9

¶10

The Commissioner,

¶11

Hindu Religious and Charitable

¶12

Endowment Department (HR & CE), 19, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,

¶13

Nungampakkam,

¶14

Chennai – 600 034.

¶15

The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religius and Charitable Endowment Department (HR & CE),

¶16

Collectorate,

¶17

Villupuram – 605 602.

¶18

The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department (HR& CE), Cuddalore – 607 002.

¶19

The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Padaleeswarar Thirukoil, Tirupadiripuliyur,

¶20

Cuddalore District – 607 002. ...Respondents

¶21

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to dispose the petitioner's representation dated 25.10.2018 within the time frame fixed by this Court.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Suresh Babu

¶23

For Respondents: Mr.M.Maharaja

¶24

Special Government Pleader

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶28

The petitioner seeks for Mandamus directing the respondents to dispose of his representation dated 25.10.2018, wherein and whereby, he sought to measure the property let out to him by the 4^th respondent temple and thereafter, to fix the proper rate payable by him.

¶29

This Court, at this stage, is not expressing any view on the merits of the matter made by the petitioner, as it is for the 4^th respondent to consider the said request and pass appropriate orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 4^th respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25.10.2018 and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vsi To 1. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department (HR & CE), 19, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungampakkam, Chennai – 600 034. 2. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religius and Charitable Endowment Department (HR & CE), Collectorate, Villupuram – 605 602.

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶31

The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department (HR& CE), Cuddalore – 607 002.

¶32

The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Padaleeswarar Thirukoil, Tirupadiripuliyur, Cuddalore District – 607 002.

¶33

+1cc to Mr.P.Suresh Babu, Advocate sr.9184
+1cc to the Government Pleader sr.10362
W.P.No.2818 of 2019
gmr[co]
srg 26/02/2019

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M.Raghavan v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Raghavan v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hamosons Exports Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Tax Recovery Officer

P.Ponraj @ Ponnarasan Vs The District Collector

M/s.Vijayalakshmi Agencies Vs The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax

Jayakrishnan Vs The District Collector

Thangavel Vs The District Adi Dravidar and

S.Ganesan Vs Office of the Frro Bureau